Woodbridge Toy Store Not Liable to Assault Victim for Fight on its Premises
A verbal altercation between a male and female customer at a Toys “R” Us store turned into a physical fight when the woman’s fiancée arrived. The male customer sued the other man for assault and also sued Toys “R” Us for negligent security, or failing to provide a reasonably safe environment for its customers. The court granted a default judgment for the plaintiff against the attacker, but dismissed the complaint against the toy store.
The fight in this case (Flood v. Toys R Us, Inc.) began when a man went to the Toys “R” Us store in Woodbridge with his two children to make some returns. The man went to the customer service counter, but another customer moved in front of him and told him the line started behind them in the waiting area. As he left the area, the man said something to the woman about making a “ghetto move” or pulling some “really ghetto sh*t” and apparently told her to go get her husband after calling her or referring to her as “a piece of sh*t.” The woman did indeed call her fiancée who arrived at the store and asked his girlfriend to point the man out to him. Once she did, he strode toward the man, pushed him and a fight ensued. The fight was eventually broken up by an off-duty police officer.
The man sued his attacker and also sued the toy store. The attacker never answered the summons, so a default judgment was entered against him. As to Toys “R” Us, the store filed a summary judgment motion to dismiss the case against them. The motion judge held that the store could not reasonably foresee the fight and had no duty to prevent it or even to break it up once it started. The assault victim appealed.
On appeal, the New Jersey court noted that business owners owe a duty of care to their customers, which is generally a duty to correct any known dangerous conditions or warn customers of potential dangers. As to criminal acts committed by others on the premises, property owners are usually not responsible for injuries caused by these acts, although there are exceptions. For instance, a business owner in a high crime area may have a duty to provide security in the parking lot, because it is reasonably foreseeable that a criminal act could occur there. In this case, however, the appeals court agreed with the motion judge that there was not enough evidence to show that store employees could have or should have foreseen that a fight was going to occur.
